paleontology, for those who loves dinosaurs

[alang1216]

life begats life

So you don't have any reason to believe life was ever created and it has always been here just as it is now?

why do you edit his comment and make it out of context???

How is it out of context?

Quote mining.

Quote mining (also contextomy) is the fallacious tactic of taking quotes out of context in order to make them seemingly agree with the quote miner's viewpoint or to make the comments of an opponent seem more extreme or hold positions they don't in order to make their positions easier to refute or demonize.[note 1] It's a way of lying.

Your post:

The evidence is we are here. We have not observed anything else besides life begats life. We observe in experiments that proteins can only be formed inside the cell, not outside it. Amino acids form proteins, but they have chirality so they cannot be superimposed upon each other. Shall I go on or are you too thick?​

Please correct me. Do you believe "life begats life" or don't you? How did I distort your meaning?

 

[Grumblenuts]

We observe in experiments that proteins can only be formed inside the cell, not outside it. Amino acids form proteins, but they have chirality so they cannot be superimposed upon each other. Shall I go on or are you too thick?

Okay, so let's critically examine that pile of shit for a moment.. What we need here is a sample of some actual, pertinent cell biology:

How is it possible, therefore, to maintain very fast metabolic rates?
The answer lies in the spatial organization of cell components. Reaction rates can be increased without raising substrate concentrations by bringing the various enzymes involved in a reaction sequence together to form a large protein assembly known as a multienzyme complex (Figure 3-54). Because this allows the product of enzyme A to be passed directly to enzyme B, and so on, diffusion rates need not be limiting, even when the concentrations of the substrates in the cell as a whole are very low. It is perhaps not surprising, therefore, that such enzyme complexes are very common, and they are involved in nearly all aspects of metabolism—including the central genetic processes of DNA, RNA, and protein synthesis. In fact, few enzymes in eucaryotic cells may be left to diffuse freely in solution; instead, most seem to have evolved binding sites that concentrate them with other proteins of related function in particular regions of the cell, thereby increasing the rate and efficiency of the reactions that they catalyze.

So what's that have to do with the price of tea in China, you may well ask? It explains why cells organize the way they do. OMG, cells, amino acids, proteins, all evolving to maximize the efficiency of each.. Who coulda guessed it? Who wudda thunk it? The question isn't whether proteins can ever form outside of a cell. Of course they can't.. normally! But have you tried doing it billions of times... over millions of years... in various hot environments.. having all sorts of gases and pressures far outside anything one would ever expect to find outside today? No, you most assuredly have not. So... you really have no fucking clue as to what could or could not be scientifically possible in such conditions. We're simply not technologically advanced enough quite yet to conduct or monitor such vast experiments. Yet here we are. Evidence that it must have happened. Right in your face. But you choose to believe some institutional fairy story instead of the obvious.. Sad.

 

[Flopper]

There is much debate and research about the origin of dinosaurs. Since we don’t have complete records of every animal alive at any one period, we can never definitely say that this or that was the “first”: we can only say with confidence that a certain animal is the earliest example we have found so far, of a specific evolutionary clade.

Evolution is like a giant jigsaw puzzle in which the pieces in some parts of the puzzle fit perfect. In other parts of the puzzle the pieces seem to fit but latter we find they don't. And still other parts of the puzzle we hardly have any pieces at all. Evolution is a perfect example of a scientific theory, constantly changing as new evidence is found. Some day we may have enough pieces of the puzzle that we can say with a high degree of confidence as to where the dinosaurs came from. But even then we still can't regard it as absolute truth because in science the only absolute truth is there is no absolute truth.

That's not good enough when you have common descent -- Building the tree. My argument is you don't have transitional fossils for practically all except those by natural selection. Even if it is a puzzle, you have to show one change to another. Also, what happens to the present is the key to past concept. We have chickens for example who do not show any traces of dinosaurs. The secular scientists want to reverse engineer the chicken to have dinosaur legs and feet. However, this experiment has been a failure. What I can't believe and question is claims that today's animals aren't as the same as those in the past, i.e. today's reptiles for example were different in the past just because they do not evolve into what is claimed to have happened in the past. If evolution is true, then one should be able to take an animal and show how it evolved just like with natural, artificial selection, or hybrids.

Also, the claim that the egg came first is hard to believe since it is complex. There is no explanation of how an egg could come first and also be fertilized. Where is the sexual reproduction or rooster? Creation scientists claim the adult dinosaur came first and that all adult animals came first. It was shown via experiment that the chicken came before the egg in 2017. Here is an example of a chicken egg:

chicken embryo gif 1812298 gif original — Postimage.org

Given the general rarity of fossils, fossils showing evolutionary transitions are not at all rare. This can be illustrated with a range of examples, of which the record of hominid fossils is especially striking. The skulls shown below display a clear, smooth transition from the early ancestors of modern humans to the modern form of the human skull. A wag might suggest that there is a gap between each of those fossils, and demand a transitional fossil to fill each such gap. Because this evolutionary sequence is relatively recent, there are enough fossils that we can only show the full transition with graphs like the one below.

Transitional Fossils Are Not Rare

 

[Flopper]

Humans belong to a species known as homo sapiens in the genus Homo. Possibly the term "less advanced humans" is referring to the Neanderthals, although we did not evolve from Neanderthals. They were very close to modern day humans except they had smaller brains. Genetically, they were close to humans but were assign a species of homo neanderthalensis. They became extent about 35,000 to 40,000 years ago. Fossil of modern man and Neanderthals remains have been found in the same areas and dated during the same time period which have lead some people to believe there was cross breeding between the species which may have lead to extinction of the species. Other believe they were driven to extinction because they could not compete with modern man.

Homo sapiens were believed to have evolved from Homo erectus for most of the 20th century. However a discover in Africa around 1970 of a new species, Homo ergaster genetically between Homo erectus and Homo spaiens has lead to the acceptance that homo spaiens evolved from this new species, Homo ergaster.

The trouble I am having is you are assuming there was evolution. It is more of the facts used to fit the theory. Neanderthals were like modern humans, but probably more sturdier and heartier people. Modern humans would probably not be as fit and strong as them. As I keep saying today's secular scientists have eliminated their opposition who have a different theory.

"Neanderthals were human. They buried their dead, used tools, had a complex social structure, employed language, and played musical instruments. Neanderthal anatomy differences are extremely minor and can be for the most part explained as a result of a genetically isolated people that lived a rigorous life in a harsh, cold climate."

The homo erectus were similar to modern humans, too. Their characteristics could be similar to those of modern day Eskimos. The anatomical differences are very small and homo erectus could just as well be homo sapien.

Neanderthals Are Still Human!

How Coherent Is the Human Evolution Story?

Homo erectus and a modern Eskimo are almost identical aren't they.

 

[progressive hunter]

There is much debate and research about the origin of dinosaurs. Since we don’t have complete records of every animal alive at any one period, we can never definitely say that this or that was the “first”: we can only say with confidence that a certain animal is the earliest example we have found so far, of a specific evolutionary clade.

Evolution is like a giant jigsaw puzzle in which the pieces in some parts of the puzzle fit perfect. In other parts of the puzzle the pieces seem to fit but latter we find they don't. And still other parts of the puzzle we hardly have any pieces at all. Evolution is a perfect example of a scientific theory, constantly changing as new evidence is found. Some day we may have enough pieces of the puzzle that we can say with a high degree of confidence as to where the dinosaurs came from. But even then we still can't regard it as absolute truth because in science the only absolute truth is there is no absolute truth.

That's not good enough when you have common descent -- Building the tree. My argument is you don't have transitional fossils for practically all except those by natural selection. Even if it is a puzzle, you have to show one change to another. Also, what happens to the present is the key to past concept. We have chickens for example who do not show any traces of dinosaurs. The secular scientists want to reverse engineer the chicken to have dinosaur legs and feet. However, this experiment has been a failure. What I can't believe and question is claims that today's animals aren't as the same as those in the past, i.e. today's reptiles for example were different in the past just because they do not evolve into what is claimed to have happened in the past. If evolution is true, then one should be able to take an animal and show how it evolved just like with natural, artificial selection, or hybrids.

Also, the claim that the egg came first is hard to believe since it is complex. There is no explanation of how an egg could come first and also be fertilized. Where is the sexual reproduction or rooster? Creation scientists claim the adult dinosaur came first and that all adult animals came first. It was shown via experiment that the chicken came before the egg in 2017. Here is an example of a chicken egg:

chicken embryo gif 1812298 gif original — Postimage.org

Given the general rarity of fossils, fossils showing evolutionary transitions are not at all rare. This can be illustrated with a range of examples, of which the record of hominid fossils is especially striking. The skulls shown below display a clear, smooth transition from the early ancestors of modern humans to the modern form of the human skull. A wag might suggest that there is a gap between each of those fossils, and demand a transitional fossil to fill each such gap. Because this evolutionary sequence is relatively recent, there are enough fossils that we can only show the full transition with graphs like the one below.

Transitional Fossils Are Not Rare

more speculation and no proof they gave birth to or morphed into each other,,,

and what were they before they were these forms???

arranging pictures on a page is proof of nothing,,,

 

[Flopper]

There is much debate and research about the origin of dinosaurs. Since we don’t have complete records of every animal alive at any one period, we can never definitely say that this or that was the “first”: we can only say with confidence that a certain animal is the earliest example we have found so far, of a specific evolutionary clade.

Evolution is like a giant jigsaw puzzle in which the pieces in some parts of the puzzle fit perfect. In other parts of the puzzle the pieces seem to fit but latter we find they don't. And still other parts of the puzzle we hardly have any pieces at all. Evolution is a perfect example of a scientific theory, constantly changing as new evidence is found. Some day we may have enough pieces of the puzzle that we can say with a high degree of confidence as to where the dinosaurs came from. But even then we still can't regard it as absolute truth because in science the only absolute truth is there is no absolute truth.

That's not good enough when you have common descent -- Building the tree. My argument is you don't have transitional fossils for practically all except those by natural selection. Even if it is a puzzle, you have to show one change to another. Also, what happens to the present is the key to past concept. We have chickens for example who do not show any traces of dinosaurs. The secular scientists want to reverse engineer the chicken to have dinosaur legs and feet. However, this experiment has been a failure. What I can't believe and question is claims that today's animals aren't as the same as those in the past, i.e. today's reptiles for example were different in the past just because they do not evolve into what is claimed to have happened in the past. If evolution is true, then one should be able to take an animal and show how it evolved just like with natural, artificial selection, or hybrids.

Also, the claim that the egg came first is hard to believe since it is complex. There is no explanation of how an egg could come first and also be fertilized. Where is the sexual reproduction or rooster? Creation scientists claim the adult dinosaur came first and that all adult animals came first. It was shown via experiment that the chicken came before the egg in 2017. Here is an example of a chicken egg:

chicken embryo gif 1812298 gif original — Postimage.org

Given the general rarity of fossils, fossils showing evolutionary transitions are not at all rare. This can be illustrated with a range of examples, of which the record of hominid fossils is especially striking. The skulls shown below display a clear, smooth transition from the early ancestors of modern humans to the modern form of the human skull. A wag might suggest that there is a gap between each of those fossils, and demand a transitional fossil to fill each such gap. Because this evolutionary sequence is relatively recent, there are enough fossils that we can only show the full transition with graphs like the one below.

Transitional Fossils Are Not Rare

more speculation and no proof they morphed into or from each other,,,

and what were they before they were these forms???

arranging pictures on a page is proof of nothing,,,

I really don't understand how anyone who accepts the creation myth with no evidence at all would expect proof of evolution. Evolution is a scientific theory which can never be proved, no matter how much evidence exists because it's a theory which is ever changing as more evidence is found. The creation myth is so preposterous, you can't defend it so you attack the only theory that is supported by any real evidence.

 

[progressive hunter]

There is much debate and research about the origin of dinosaurs. Since we don’t have complete records of every animal alive at any one period, we can never definitely say that this or that was the “first”: we can only say with confidence that a certain animal is the earliest example we have found so far, of a specific evolutionary clade.

Evolution is like a giant jigsaw puzzle in which the pieces in some parts of the puzzle fit perfect. In other parts of the puzzle the pieces seem to fit but latter we find they don't. And still other parts of the puzzle we hardly have any pieces at all. Evolution is a perfect example of a scientific theory, constantly changing as new evidence is found. Some day we may have enough pieces of the puzzle that we can say with a high degree of confidence as to where the dinosaurs came from. But even then we still can't regard it as absolute truth because in science the only absolute truth is there is no absolute truth.

That's not good enough when you have common descent -- Building the tree. My argument is you don't have transitional fossils for practically all except those by natural selection. Even if it is a puzzle, you have to show one change to another. Also, what happens to the present is the key to past concept. We have chickens for example who do not show any traces of dinosaurs. The secular scientists want to reverse engineer the chicken to have dinosaur legs and feet. However, this experiment has been a failure. What I can't believe and question is claims that today's animals aren't as the same as those in the past, i.e. today's reptiles for example were different in the past just because they do not evolve into what is claimed to have happened in the past. If evolution is true, then one should be able to take an animal and show how it evolved just like with natural, artificial selection, or hybrids.

Also, the claim that the egg came first is hard to believe since it is complex. There is no explanation of how an egg could come first and also be fertilized. Where is the sexual reproduction or rooster? Creation scientists claim the adult dinosaur came first and that all adult animals came first. It was shown via experiment that the chicken came before the egg in 2017. Here is an example of a chicken egg:

chicken embryo gif 1812298 gif original — Postimage.org

Given the general rarity of fossils, fossils showing evolutionary transitions are not at all rare. This can be illustrated with a range of examples, of which the record of hominid fossils is especially striking. The skulls shown below display a clear, smooth transition from the early ancestors of modern humans to the modern form of the human skull. A wag might suggest that there is a gap between each of those fossils, and demand a transitional fossil to fill each such gap. Because this evolutionary sequence is relatively recent, there are enough fossils that we can only show the full transition with graphs like the one below.

Transitional Fossils Are Not Rare

more speculation and no proof they morphed into or from each other,,,

and what were they before they were these forms???

arranging pictures on a page is proof of nothing,,,

I really don't understand how anyone who accepts the creation myth with no evidence at all would expect proof of evolution. Evolution is a scientific theory which can never be proved, no matter how much evidence exists because it's a theory which is ever changing as more evidence is found. The creation myth is so preposterous, you can't defend it so you attack the only theory that is supported by any real evidence.

who said I believe the creation myth/theory???

so lets stick to the facts and what we know and not some pictures randomly put on a page,,,

like I said there is zero proof any of the skulls represent the evolution of man because all we know is something died and not if it morphed or gave birth to anything other than its kind,,,
and what did they look like before they looked like that???

at least the creationist base it on faith because its a religion,,,
whats the evo excuse??? they do push it as fact and attack anyone that questions it,,,all while using tax payer money,,,

let me ask you
does this represent the evo of horses???

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I really don't understand how anyone who accepts the creation myth with no evidence at all would expect proof of evolution.

Oh, well then,allow me to clarify.

They aren't actually asking for proof, argument, or evidence of evolution for their consideration; no would they give them any honest consideration, if you did the work of compiling it all and presenting it to them.

As i am sure you are starting to notice.

They will reject all of it for no good reason and continue to claim there exists no evidence or good argument for evolution. And they do this for one reason alone: to forward a narrative that betting on the truth of evolution is "faith", no different or more valid than their own faith.

Having no tools, resources, evidence, or good arguments with which to support or elevate their own, faith-based beliefs, they are left no choice but to try to drag this evidence-based knowledge into the shitty murk where their faith resides, in order to make the comparison more favorable to their faith based beliefs.

And that's it, in a nutshell.

 

[progressive hunter]

I really don't understand how anyone who accepts the creation myth with no evidence at all would expect proof of evolution.

Oh, well then,allow me to clarify.

They arent actually asking for proof or evidence of evolution for their consideration; no woild they give it any honest consideration, if you did the work of compiling it and presenting it to them.

As i am sure you are starting to notice.

They will reject all of it for n9 good reason, amd continue to claim there exists no evidence. And they do this for one reason alone: to forward a narrative that betting on the truth of evolution is "faith", no different or more valif than their own faith.

Having no tools, reaources, evidence, or good arguments with which to support or epevate theor own, faith-based beliefs, they are left no choice but to try to drag this evidence-bases knowledge into the shirty murk where their faith resides, in order to make the comparison more favorable to their faith based beliefs.

And that's it, in a nutshell.

so says the attention grabbing troll,,,,

 

[Grumblenuts]

I really don't understand how anyone who accepts the creation myth with no evidence at all would expect proof of evolution.

Oh, well then,allow me to clarify.

They aren't actually asking for proof, argument, or evidence of evolution for their consideration; no would they give them any honest consideration, if you did the work of compiling it all and presenting it to them.

As i am sure you are starting to notice.

They will reject all of it for no good reason and continue to claim there exists no evidence or good argument for evolution. And they do this for one reason alone: to forward a narrative that betting on the truth of evolution is "faith", no different or more valid than their own faith.

Having no tools, resources, evidence, or good arguments with which to support or elevate their own, faith-based beliefs, they are left no choice but to try to drag this evidence-based knowledge into the shitty murk where their faith resides, in order to make the comparison more favorable to their faith based beliefs.

And that's it, in a nutshell.

Sounds about right, but still.. even that low level of concerted effort demands some significant reasoning power.. which begs the question: If they're smart enough to know better, why bother with the same old crap, year after year? At some point one can no longer fail to self-reflect. To apply the same tests one demands of others to their own indefensible positions. We know it does indeed wear thin since so many outspoken atheists turn out to be former priests and ministers who, of course, generally already know all their opponent's talking points much better than their opponents. People gotta sleep. Self-doubt makes for lots of tossing and turning instead. Drugs maybe?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Who Wrote The Bible?
Interesting read:
What Does The Actual Historical Evidence Say?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If they're smart enough to know better, why bother with the same old crap, year after year?

Because their faith remains. And this specious, fraudulent dog and pony show is all they have.

 

[Flopper]

There is much debate and research about the origin of dinosaurs. Since we don’t have complete records of every animal alive at any one period, we can never definitely say that this or that was the “first”: we can only say with confidence that a certain animal is the earliest example we have found so far, of a specific evolutionary clade.

Evolution is like a giant jigsaw puzzle in which the pieces in some parts of the puzzle fit perfect. In other parts of the puzzle the pieces seem to fit but latter we find they don't. And still other parts of the puzzle we hardly have any pieces at all. Evolution is a perfect example of a scientific theory, constantly changing as new evidence is found. Some day we may have enough pieces of the puzzle that we can say with a high degree of confidence as to where the dinosaurs came from. But even then we still can't regard it as absolute truth because in science the only absolute truth is there is no absolute truth.

That's not good enough when you have common descent -- Building the tree. My argument is you don't have transitional fossils for practically all except those by natural selection. Even if it is a puzzle, you have to show one change to another. Also, what happens to the present is the key to past concept. We have chickens for example who do not show any traces of dinosaurs. The secular scientists want to reverse engineer the chicken to have dinosaur legs and feet. However, this experiment has been a failure. What I can't believe and question is claims that today's animals aren't as the same as those in the past, i.e. today's reptiles for example were different in the past just because they do not evolve into what is claimed to have happened in the past. If evolution is true, then one should be able to take an animal and show how it evolved just like with natural, artificial selection, or hybrids.

Also, the claim that the egg came first is hard to believe since it is complex. There is no explanation of how an egg could come first and also be fertilized. Where is the sexual reproduction or rooster? Creation scientists claim the adult dinosaur came first and that all adult animals came first. It was shown via experiment that the chicken came before the egg in 2017. Here is an example of a chicken egg:

chicken embryo gif 1812298 gif original — Postimage.org

Given the general rarity of fossils, fossils showing evolutionary transitions are not at all rare. This can be illustrated with a range of examples, of which the record of hominid fossils is especially striking. The skulls shown below display a clear, smooth transition from the early ancestors of modern humans to the modern form of the human skull. A wag might suggest that there is a gap between each of those fossils, and demand a transitional fossil to fill each such gap. Because this evolutionary sequence is relatively recent, there are enough fossils that we can only show the full transition with graphs like the one below.

Transitional Fossils Are Not Rare

more speculation and no proof they morphed into or from each other,,,

and what were they before they were these forms???

arranging pictures on a page is proof of nothing,,,

I really don't understand how anyone who accepts the creation myth with no evidence at all would expect proof of evolution. Evolution is a scientific theory which can never be proved, no matter how much evidence exists because it's a theory which is ever changing as more evidence is found. The creation myth is so preposterous, you can't defend it so you attack the only theory that is supported by any real evidence.

who said I believe the creation myth/theory???

so lets stick to the facts and what we know and not some pictures randomly put on a page,,,

like I said there is zero proof any of the skulls represent the evolution of man because all we know is something died and not if it morphed or gave birth to anything other than its kind,,,
and what did they look like before they looked like that???

at least the creationist base it on faith because its a religion,,,
whats the evo excuse??? they do push it as fact and attack anyone that questions it,,,all while using tax payer money,,,

let me ask you
does this represent the evo of horses???


View attachment 260998

You are right about one thing, there is no proof because theories can not be proved because they are always subject to change. However, there is evidence and a hell of lot of it.

We know a lot more about those skulls than you think. First we know how old they are based radiometric dating of the skulls and the rocks they are found in. Secondly we know the attributes such size, shape, and size of the brain they held. We can also tell that they are not homo sapiens due to brain size, skull shape an characteristics of their skeleton. We can place them within genus or family and see transition in structure by comparing them with other skeletal remains. Lastly, DNA studies of fossils .4 to 1.5 million years old allow us to see the changes in DNA as we go through through family and genus. Paleontology is not an exact science but with tools such radiometric dating and dna, plus the increasing number finds it's getting a lot better.

 

[progressive hunter]

That's not good enough when you have common descent -- Building the tree. My argument is you don't have transitional fossils for practically all except those by natural selection. Even if it is a puzzle, you have to show one change to another. Also, what happens to the present is the key to past concept. We have chickens for example who do not show any traces of dinosaurs. The secular scientists want to reverse engineer the chicken to have dinosaur legs and feet. However, this experiment has been a failure. What I can't believe and question is claims that today's animals aren't as the same as those in the past, i.e. today's reptiles for example were different in the past just because they do not evolve into what is claimed to have happened in the past. If evolution is true, then one should be able to take an animal and show how it evolved just like with natural, artificial selection, or hybrids.

Also, the claim that the egg came first is hard to believe since it is complex. There is no explanation of how an egg could come first and also be fertilized. Where is the sexual reproduction or rooster? Creation scientists claim the adult dinosaur came first and that all adult animals came first. It was shown via experiment that the chicken came before the egg in 2017. Here is an example of a chicken egg:

chicken embryo gif 1812298 gif original — Postimage.org

Given the general rarity of fossils, fossils showing evolutionary transitions are not at all rare. This can be illustrated with a range of examples, of which the record of hominid fossils is especially striking. The skulls shown below display a clear, smooth transition from the early ancestors of modern humans to the modern form of the human skull. A wag might suggest that there is a gap between each of those fossils, and demand a transitional fossil to fill each such gap. Because this evolutionary sequence is relatively recent, there are enough fossils that we can only show the full transition with graphs like the one below.

Transitional Fossils Are Not Rare

more speculation and no proof they morphed into or from each other,,,

and what were they before they were these forms???

arranging pictures on a page is proof of nothing,,,

I really don't understand how anyone who accepts the creation myth with no evidence at all would expect proof of evolution. Evolution is a scientific theory which can never be proved, no matter how much evidence exists because it's a theory which is ever changing as more evidence is found. The creation myth is so preposterous, you can't defend it so you attack the only theory that is supported by any real evidence.

who said I believe the creation myth/theory???

so lets stick to the facts and what we know and not some pictures randomly put on a page,,,

like I said there is zero proof any of the skulls represent the evolution of man because all we know is something died and not if it morphed or gave birth to anything other than its kind,,,
and what did they look like before they looked like that???

at least the creationist base it on faith because its a religion,,,
whats the evo excuse??? they do push it as fact and attack anyone that questions it,,,all while using tax payer money,,,

let me ask you
does this represent the evo of horses???


View attachment 260998

You are right about one thing, there is no proof because theories can not be proved. They are always subject to change. However, there is evidence and a hell of lot of it.

We know a lot more about those skulls than you think. First we know how old they are based radiometric dating of the skulls and the rocks they are found in. Secondly we know the attributes such size, shape, and size of the brain they held. We can also tell that they are not homo sapiens due to brain size, skull shape an characteristics of their skeleton. We can place them within genus or family and see transition in structure by comparing them with other skeletal remains. Lastly, DNA studies of fossils .4 to 1.5 million years old allow us to see the changes in DNA as we go through through family and genus. Paleontology is not an exact science but with tools such radiometric dating and dna, plus the increasing number finds it's getting a lot better.

speculation is not evidence,,,its barely an opinion,,,

 

[Grumblenuts]

speculation is not evidence,,,its barely an opinion,,,

So quit your speculating. Including about supernatural nonsense. Remember, you've claimed to care about making sense. High time you got started..

 

[progressive hunter]

w

speculation is not evidence,,,its barely an opinion,,,

So quit your speculating. Including about supernatural nonsense. Remember, you've claimed to care about making sense. High time you got started..

when did I push the supernatural???

 

[Hollie]

w

speculation is not evidence,,,its barely an opinion,,,

So quit your speculating. Including about supernatural nonsense. Remember, you've claimed to care about making sense. High time you got started..

when did I push the supernatural???

Conceptions of supernatural gods tends toward pushing the supernatural.

 

[Flopper]

Who Wrote The Bible?
Interesting read:
What Does The Actual Historical Evidence Say?

The creation story comes from Moses, or someone that we have no evidence of his existence. There is of course no original text and there is no way of knowing how many versions there were of the story. The fact that so many millions of people accept this nonsense literally is truly a miracle.

I have no problem accepting the creation story as allegorical tale in which God is the architect of the universe and the prime mover. However to accept the Bible literally is to deny science and just plain common sense and that is a very serious problem today.

 

[james bond]

"I can't hear yoouuuuuu, NANANANANANA!!"

It just goes to show that you have wax in your ears and diarrhea coming out of your fingers as you type.

This reminds me of your recent posts.

 

[james bond]

Homo erectus and a modern Eskimo are almost identical aren't they

It's just human variability if one examines the fossils. The rest are artists' drawings to make it look like evolution occurred. If you compare modern humans with the fossils, then there isn't much difference. Your evidence is highly circumstantial as an artist can made these fossils to look like anything he wants.

Amazing Vintage Photographs Capture Everyday Life of Eskimo People From the Early 20th Century ~ vintage everyday

Homo erectus 'to' modern man: evolution or human variability? - creation.com